> I think "for example" makes this sound more general than it is. List comprehensions are one of the rare few constructs that introduce a new scope. The rarity

> I think "for example" makes this sound more general than it is. List comprehensions are one of the rare few constructs that introduce a new scope. The rarity of the construct doesn't matter honestly. Are you saying that list comprehensions should _not_ have introduced a new scope because it was unusual? > The match block is more syntactically similar to if/while/etc. blocks, and so it makes sense that it would follow similar scoping rules. Syntactically yes, but semantically it is very different and the semantics must be taken into account as well. The example given at the top of this thread (case 404: and case variable:) is enough to convince me that having variable scoping is a brain-dead obvious requirement. > I think the complete situation is messy, but it's not the variable scoping rules' fault. I agree with that statement. I think that improving the design/semantics would be more effective than just adding some more scoping rules in. In fact, I don't think this PEP should have been accepted in this current form at all. But given the current design, block-level scoping is appropriate. Given another design like maybe those you mention might not require that, but I think focusing on the fact that python doesn't have block-level scoping makes no sense. The python language before this PEP is not the same as the one after this PEP. The new one should have block-level scoping in this instance.